what made building 7 collapse?

as i read the article here it asked many questions and i wonderd how many answers could come from this like why did building 7 collapse it wasn't hit
by any plane and if it was bought down by fire it would be the first steel framed tower to be brought down by fire here is the link see if you can
debunk any of the questions www.globalresearch.ca...

I believe that explosives brought down tower 7.
But 11th Sept is a very fueled (pardon the terrible pun) debate, that has so many conclusions to it from so many sources, it could have been Orb Ufos,
seen in some videos.....could have been hoaxed, as in some videos (definitely not my opinion btw)..... or if you believe the propaganda of fox news,
it was passenger planes and terrorists, from what we've heard previously.
i think it is one of them things we will never actually know, ever. This is probably more under wraps than the Ufo subject is to the US government.
Its that important IMO.

You might be interested in this new video by dprjones in regards to the WTC 7 collapse. I found it rational and fairly interesting, but I know it's
cause much rage among some members. You can make of his analysis what you will.

Thanks for that vid. I am still undecided on my beliefs on this 911 thing, it is good to see a video that is not of the conspiracy type every once in
awhile. It does have an agenda as do all of them but I think it is very important to see both sides of the debate.

The leaseholder already admitted that he had building 7 brought down through a contolled demolition after it revieved fire damage to a few floors.
Interesting thing about it is that it was already rigged to be demolished before 9/11. If building 7 was rigged to come down, then it is very easy to
believe that the towers were rigged as well.

Let's assume you're correct. It would be safe to say that scores, if not hundreds of firefighters would know about this, that Silverstein and Hayden
and Nigro obviously know, and that at one point they owned up to it.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Let's assume you're correct. It would be safe to say that scores, if not hundreds of firefighters would know about this, that Silverstein and Hayden
and Nigro obviously know, and that at one point they owned up to it.

How would hundreds of firefighters know what 2 people talked about on the phone?

So the incident commader decided to bring down the building, something that he has the authority to do in an emegency.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You have elected to pick up this ball, you have possession of it, so now it's time to show your stuff.

The "EIC" (emergency incident commander) "decided to bring the building down".

Well according to the official story Silverstein stated the fire commander decided to PULL IT, which could only mean the building since the firemen
were already out of the building beofre the call was made.

Basically the incident commander called Silverstein to let him know that they could not save his building. The incident commander in this case the
fire commander has the authority to bring down a building in an emergency.

According to Chief hayden the firemen wre out of the buidling around 3PM the building came down about 5:30PM.

HOW did this "EIC" manage to successfully install the "explosives" and such that are claimed by the Conspiracy Theorists?

Well he probably gave the order to the demo teams there to take down an already unstable building.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Let's assume you're correct. It would be safe to say that scores, if not hundreds of firefighters would know about this, that Silverstein and Hayden
and Nigro obviously know, and that at one point they owned up to it.

How would hundreds of firefighters know what 2 people talked about on the phone?

So the incident commader decided to bring down the building, something that he has the authority to do in an emegency.

The incident commander, according to you, brought the building down. He had the authority to do this.

How did he accomplish it? On his own? And why did he decide to keep it secret from his men? After all, he was acting within his authority. Apparently.

Well he probably gave the order to the demo teams there to take down an already unstable building.

So, there are "demo teams" just sitting around, like on stand-by, waiting for the call to action?

You correctly said it was about 1500 when they all decided the building was a "lost cause", in terms of attempting to extinguish the fires in order
to save the building.

Actual collapse time was not really "about 5:50"...it was closer to 5:20 (1720 hours).

Regardless...this standing-by "demo teams" managed to get into the building, unobserved, and accomplish their tasks in a little more than two
hours?

Can you see why this is failing the sensiblity test, for me?

Now...having said that, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the first part of the misunderstanding that has caused all this waste of time, talking
about it:

The "Pull it" comment.

I think it's been shown, time and again, what that actually meant, in context, that afternoon. It referred to 'pulling' the efforts to save the
building. It was deemd too dangerous to have people INSIDE the building, by that stage of development, as it was apparent that the building was
unstable, and collapse was imminent.

This is all weel-researched, well-known stuff....unfortunately, there are always new people hearing the "Pull it" statement, as spun out of context,
for the first time, and being fooled by the CT groups who continue to misrepresent the phrase.

Most egregious, also, is the concocted "reasons" that are inferred, and "wink, wink, nudge, nudged" --- mainly, I think, started by the "Loose
Change" dudes....the alphabet-soup tenants of the building.

Really, again, non-sensical when you think about it logically. The FIRES were out of control, burning merrily away. Stuff was already being
destroyed, and even IF the builidng had not collapsed, likely just about everything would have been gutted, anyway. SO, there was NO REASON to 'CD'
the building!!!

NOT, as "loose Change" and others suggest, to 'hide' anything, like on-going SEC investigations, or whatever is the 'claim-du-jour'....

I feel, though, that logic is missing....seems someone has "Pulled It"...

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.